US20090070453A1 - Method and Apparatus for Limiting Reuse of Domain Name System Response Information - Google Patents
Method and Apparatus for Limiting Reuse of Domain Name System Response Information Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20090070453A1 US20090070453A1 US12/259,887 US25988708A US2009070453A1 US 20090070453 A1 US20090070453 A1 US 20090070453A1 US 25988708 A US25988708 A US 25988708A US 2009070453 A1 US2009070453 A1 US 2009070453A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- information
- server
- dns
- domain name
- local
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Granted
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L61/00—Network arrangements, protocols or services for addressing or naming
- H04L61/58—Caching of addresses or names
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L61/00—Network arrangements, protocols or services for addressing or naming
- H04L61/45—Network directories; Name-to-address mapping
- H04L61/4505—Network directories; Name-to-address mapping using standardised directories; using standardised directory access protocols
- H04L61/4511—Network directories; Name-to-address mapping using standardised directories; using standardised directory access protocols using domain name system [DNS]
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L67/00—Network arrangements or protocols for supporting network services or applications
- H04L67/01—Protocols
- H04L67/10—Protocols in which an application is distributed across nodes in the network
- H04L67/1001—Protocols in which an application is distributed across nodes in the network for accessing one among a plurality of replicated servers
-
- H—ELECTRICITY
- H04—ELECTRIC COMMUNICATION TECHNIQUE
- H04L—TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL INFORMATION, e.g. TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICATION
- H04L67/00—Network arrangements or protocols for supporting network services or applications
- H04L67/01—Protocols
- H04L67/10—Protocols in which an application is distributed across nodes in the network
- H04L67/1001—Protocols in which an application is distributed across nodes in the network for accessing one among a plurality of replicated servers
- H04L67/10015—Access to distributed or replicated servers, e.g. using brokers
Definitions
- the present invention relates generally to computer network systems, and more particularly to a method and apparatus for limiting the reuse of domain name system information, such as internet protocol (IP) addresses assigned to a particular domain name, which is periodically validated.
- domain name system information such as internet protocol (IP) addresses assigned to a particular domain name, which is periodically validated.
- the domain name system is an integral part of the Internet and other networks that use Internet-type protocols and architectures, such as transmission control protocol internet protocol (TCP/IP).
- TCP/IP transmission control protocol internet protocol
- the primary function of the domain name system is to permit users to access information on different computers connected to the Internet by simply typing or selecting text names, without regard to the sequence of numbers that specify the actual machine addresses or the name servers where the information to be accessed is located.
- DNS is responsible for mapping an ASCII hostname, such as www.research.att.com to an IP address, such as 192.20.225.10.
- ASCII hostname such as www.research.att.com
- IP address such as 192.20.225.10.
- different IP addresses are returned in response to different queries, which may be a function of information, such as load and network location.
- a single response can provide multiple IP addresses.
- the entire database that is accessible over the Internet is divided into zones, which are distributed among name servers.
- the essential task of a name server is to answer queries using data in its zone.
- the reliability of the system and the information contained therein is of paramount importance. Consequently, and in order to ensure continued reliability, the DNS requires that at least two name servers within a zone contain data derived from an authoritative server, i.e., authoritative data.
- the two name servers may be denominated primary and secondary servers, or, as referred to herein, higher level DNS servers and lower level DNS servers.
- One of the chief responsibilities of name servers is to load the database files and maintain cached data acquired through resource records. Each resource record contains a so-called “time-to-live” field, which ensures that name servers do not cache data without a time bound.
- the DNS is a hierarchical service, in which one DNS server can obtain information from another and then reuse that information repeatedly until a time-based threshold is reached.
- the time-based threshold is referred to as “time-to-live” or TTL.
- TTL time-to-live
- a local DNS server acts on behalf of clients by requesting DNS records, caching them, and then serving them to other clients for a period of time, known as the TTL, without revalidating the information.
- the DNS server When an Internet user makes a request for a domain name record or information from a DNS server within the DNS, the DNS server must obtain the requested information or record and send it to the requesting party.
- One method of accomplishing this task is for the server to check its cache memory for a local list of domain names already matched to machine addresses. If the requested domain name is in cache, then the computer can respond with an answer in the form of the associated machine address within a very short period of time.
- a local list is referred to as a name cache. It is generally stored in random access memory, disk storage, or another storage device coupled to the name server computer. The name cache is updated periodically from other name servers in the Internet.
- a DNS server When a DNS server caches the data, it builds up a database with relevant information that may be useful the next time the same or a similar query is received. Essentially, once the information is cached, the name server acquires significant knowledge about the data and whether it is responsive to a particular query or class of queries. Thus, once the information is cached, the process of obtaining the data is shortened significantly because the server now has the answer to the query in its cache. This leads to greater efficiency and enhanced performance, insofar as the cached information can be used for future inquiries. The resolution of data that is already in the local cache is considerably more efficient than a remote resolution that requires maneuvering through network traffic. However, there is a tradeoff. There is a very real possibility that the cached information may become outdated by the time it is used.
- the local DNS server may serve a small number of clients, or an enormous community. Until the TTL expires, the local DNS will continue to use and distribute the same information. On the one hand, with a short TTL, the information will be fairly current, even with many clients using the specified host, because a new host can be selected before the load peaks too dramatically.
- DNS was intended to be static, that is, a hostname-to-IP address assignment would rarely change and would certainly not be different for different hosts requesting the same information.
- DNS is much more dynamic, but there is still a balance to be drawn between assigning a low TTL to ensure that too many hosts do not use the information before revalidating, and assigning a higher TTL to limit the delay in repeatedly obtaining the same DNS information.
- DNS is a hierarchical service, in which one DNS server can obtain information from another and then reuse that information until the TTL has expired. There is currently no control over whether the DNS server reuses this information to serve a small number of requests or a large number of requests. This results in what could be called a “hidden load” that can only be estimated using prior knowledge concerning a particular DNS server. For instance, a server associated with a high rate of usage would, if possible, be assigned a shorter TTL and/or directed to a host with greater capacity than a server having a more moderate rate of usage. In view of the foregoing considerations, a method and system are called for to address this hidden load problem.
- DNS domain name system
- a method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with one form of the present invention includes the step of requesting domain name information by a local domain name server from an authoritative domain name server.
- the domain name information includes an allowable usage limit that represents a maximum number of times that the domain name information can be provided to a requestor, such as a client or server, before validating the domain name information.
- a system for limiting reuse of domain name information formed in accordance with one form of the present invention includes an authoritative domain name server, a local domain name server, and at least one requestor, such as a client or server.
- the local domain name server is operatively coupled to the authoritative domain name server, and the requestor is operatively couple to the local domain name server.
- the requestor requests domain name information from the local domain name server, and the local domain name server requests domain name information from the authoritative domain name server.
- the authoritative domain name server provides the domain name information in response to the local domain name server requesting domain name information.
- the domain name information includes an allowable usage limit, which represents a maximum number of times the domain name information can be provided to the requestor before validating the domain name information.
- FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a system for limiting reuse of domain name information formed in accordance with the present invention.
- FIG. 2 a is a flowchart of a first embodiment of a method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention.
- FIG. 2 b is a flowchart of a second embodiment of the method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention.
- FIG. 3 a is a flowchart of a third embodiment of the method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention.
- FIG. 3 b is a flowchart of a fourth embodiment of the method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention.
- Domain name system (DNS) information is generally requested from an authoritative DNS server by a local DNS server.
- the authoritative server responds by providing the DNS information to the local DNS server.
- the system and method in accordance with the present invention limits reuse of domain name information by returning the requested DNS information with an allowable usage limit, in addition to the customary time-to-live (TTL) threshold.
- TTL time-to-live
- the allowable usage limit represents the maximum number of times that the associated domain name information may be provided to requestors before it must be revalidated.
- the local DNS server returning the requested DNS information to a client preferably decrements a residual usage counter, which is a countdown of the allowable usage limit.
- the local DNS server that returns the requested DNS information to another DNS server would preferably issue a subset of its own allowable usage limit to the requesting server, and decrement its own residual usage counter by that portion of the allowable usage limit granted to the requesting server to ensure that the allowable usage limit remains constant.
- the local DNS server preferably enables another DNS server to permit a maximum number of clients to use a particular IP address before revalidating.
- the server at the requested IP address is lightly loaded, the number of uses and the duration of the TTL in the response are preferably relatively high.
- the TTL is preferably more conservative.
- Another embodiment in accordance with the present invention enables the DNS server requesting revalidation of DNS information to provide feedback information concerning the number times that the DNS information has been provided to other clients and servers as an observed usage count. This information is preferably used to improve the assignment of IP addresses to achieve improved load balancing of the network.
- the same or different allowable usage limits may be assigned to the IP addresses associated with a particular hostname.
- the DNS server requesting the DNS information could then assign the IP addresses to other servers or clients randomly, sequentially (round robin), or probabilistically in accordance with weights assigned to each of the plurality of IP addresses. For example, in a probabilistic assignment, assume that there are two IP addresses, IPA 1 and IPA 2 , assigned to a hostname. Further assume that IPA 1 is assigned a weighting of 0.4 (40%) and that IPA 2 is assigned a weighting of 0.6 (60%). The DNS server requesting the DNS information could then assign IPA 1 to 40% of its requestors and assign IPA 2 to 60% of its requestors.
- FIG. 1 shows a system 10 for limiting reuse of DNS information.
- the system includes an authoritative DNS server 12 operatively coupled to a local DNS server 14 .
- the local DNS server 14 is operatively coupled to other local DNS servers 18 , 21 , 22 .
- the system also includes at least one client 16 that is operatively coupled to and requests DNS information from the local DNS server 14 .
- the clients 16 preferably access a web server 20 using DNS information obtained from the authoritative DNS server 12 , and one or more of the local DNS servers 14 , 18 , 21 , 22 .
- the authoritative DNS server 12 which returns an A record or DNS information including a hostname-to-IP-address mapping, may realize that some local DNS servers tend to serve a large number of client 16 s , and consequently may direct those servers to point their clients 16 at particular hosts that have unusually large capacity, and/or return a shorter than usual TTL.
- FIG. 2 a is a flowchart of a first embodiment of a method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention.
- a client requests DNS information in the form of a record from the local DNS server.
- the local DNS server Upon receiving the DNS information request from the client in step 24 , the local DNS server preferably determines whether the requested DNS information is in its cache in step 26 . If the requested information is in cache, the local DNS server then determines whether the cached DNS information has expired in step 28 , that is, the server determines whether the time to live (TTL) threshold associated with the DNS information is zero.
- TTL time to live
- the local DNS server determines the value of a residual usage counter in step 30 . If the value of the residual usage counter is not zero, the local DNS server decrements the value of the residual usage counter in step 32 , and provides the requested DNS information to the client that initially requested the information in step 34 .
- the local DNS server may determine that the requested DNS information is not cached in step 26 , or if it is cached, that the cached DNS information has expired in step 28 , or that although the TTL has not expired (TTL>0), the residual usage counter value is 0.
- the local DNS server preferably requests and obtains the DNS information from the authoritative DNS server, which includes a new TTL and allowable usage limit N in step 36 .
- the authoritative DNS server essentially eliminates the conditions that caused the local DNS server to request the information from the authoritative server.
- the TTL reflects the amount of time that the DNS information may exist before being revalidated.
- the residual usage counter value preferably reflects the number of times that the local DNS server may provide the domain name information to a requestor, such as a client or another server.
- the local DNS server Upon receipt of the requested DNS information from the authoritative DNS server, the local DNS server preferably stores the information in its local cache in step 38 . The local DNS server then preferably sets the residual usage counter to N ⁇ 1 in step 40 , and sends the requested DNS information to the client in step 34 . By setting the residual usage counter to N ⁇ 1, the local DNS server decrements the residual usage count by one to account for the DNS information being providing to the requesting client for the first time in step 34 .
- FIG. 2 b represents a second embodiment of the method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention, which is substantially similar to that shown in FIG. 2 a , except that the DNS information is being requested by and provided to a server rather than a client.
- the initial request for DNS information preferably originates from a local DNS server to another local DNS server, such as from server 18 , 21 to server 14 or from server 22 to server 18 shown in FIG. 1 , rather than from the client 16 to the local DNS server 14 .
- the server when the DNS server receives the request in step 42 , the server preferably determines whether the requested information is already in its cache memory in step 44 of FIG. 2 b . If the requested DNS information exists in cache, the DNS server determines that the TTL has not expired in step 46 , and the residual usage counter value is not zero in step 48 , then the DNS server preferably decrements the residual usage counter in step 50 , and sends the requested information to the requesting DNS server in step 52 .
- the DNS server also preferably sends an allowable usage limit subset M in step 52 associated with the requested information, which represents a portion of the allowable usage limit originally provided with the DNS information by the authoritative DNS server when first validated.
- the allowable usage limit M preferably reflects the number of requestors, which include clients and servers, to which the requesting DNS server may subsequently provide the corresponding information. Accordingly, the residual usage counter is preferably decremented by M in step 50 to represent that portion of the allowable usage counter being granted to the requesting DNS server in step 52 .
- the authoritative server sets the allowable usage limit N associated with the DNS information before sending it and the requested information to the local DNS server in step 54 .
- the local DNS server preferably stores the information in cache in step 56 , sets the residual usage counter to N ⁇ M in step 58 , and sends the requested DNS information to the requesting DNS server with an allowable usage limit subset M, which represents a portion of the allowable usage limit N, in step 52 .
- the requesting DNS server which has received the requested information and the associated allowable usage limit subset M, preferably decrements M each time this information is provided to a requestor by an amount equal to the usage limit granted to that requestor.
- FIG. 3 a shows a third embodiment of the method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention.
- the server when the local DNS server receives a request for DNS information from the client in step 60 and determines that the requested information is not in its cache in step 62 , the server preferably initializes an observed usage counter associated with the requested information to zero in step 74 .
- the server then preferably sends a request for the DNS information to the authoritative DNS server with the current value of the observed usage counter in step 76 .
- the authoritative DNS server preferably provides the requested DNS information with the associated TTL value and the allowable usage limit N to the requesting client in step 78 .
- the requesting DNS server essentially obtains information from the authoritative server that is defined by a set of three parameters, namely, TTL and the allowable usage limit N provided by the authoritative server, as well as the observed usage counter provided by the requesting server.
- the DNS server preferably stores the information in its local cache in step 80 so that it is readily available for the next client requesting the same information.
- the local DNS server preferably sets the associated residual usage counter to N ⁇ 1 in step 82 to account for the fact that is it about to provide the information to the requesting client.
- the server also preferably increments the observed usage counter in step 84 to represent that the information is being provided to the requesting client.
- the observed usage counter For every decrement in the residual usage counter, there is preferably an accompanying increment in the observed usage counter, and both figures represent the fact that the requested information is being provided to the requesting client in step 72 .
- the server preferably requests the DNS information from the authoritative server and provides the current observed usage counter value to the authoritative server in step 76 . If the requested DNS information is found to be in cache in step 62 , the DNS information has not expired in step 64 , and the associated residual usage counter is not zero in step 66 , the observed usage counter is incremented in step 68 and the residual usage counter is decremented in step 70 to represent that the DNS information is being provided to the requesting client in step 72 .
- FIG. 3 b is a flowchart of another embodiment in accordance with the present invention, which is substantially similar to that shown in FIG. 3 a , except that the flowchart represents the viewpoint of a mid-level server, such as server 18 in FIG. 1 , which receives a request for DNS information from a lower-level server, such as server 22 in FIG. 1 .
- the mid-level server preferably forwards the request for DNS information to an upper-level server, such as server 14 or the authoritative server 12 shown in FIG. 1 .
- the mid-level server preferably receives the DNS information request from the lower-level server with the allowable usage limit N L that the mid-level server previously granted to the lower-level server in response to the request from the lower-level server for the DNS information, a lower bound of the observed usage associated with the DNS information reported by the lower-level server O L,low , and an upper bound of the observed usage associated with the DNS information reported by the lower-level server O L,high . If, in step 88 , the requested DNS information is not in the cache of the mid-level server, the value of the mid-level server variables corresponding to each of these variables is set to zero in step 90 . The mid-level server then sends a request to the upper-level or authoritative server in step 92 , which includes the current value of N M , O M,low , and O M,high .
- the mid-level server preferably receives the requested information with the TTL and allowable usage limit N from the upper-level or authoritative server.
- the mid-level server then initializes its residual usage counter to N, initializes the upper bound of observed usage reported by the mid-level server O high to zero, and initializes the lower bound of observed usage reported by the mid-level server at the lower-level server O low to zero in step 96 .
- the DNS information is stored in local cache in the mid-level server in step 98 with the allowable usage limit N.
- an allowable usage limit for the DNS information response to the lower-level server N resp is chosen as less than or equal to the residual usage counter.
- the value of N resp can be chosen based on such factors as the remaining TTL of the DNS response, the number of requestors, which may include clients and lower-level DNS servers, to which the requesting DNS server may subsequently provide the requested information, past history of usage by this and other requesting DNS servers, etc.
- the lower bound for the observed usage at the mid-level server O low is incremented by one
- the upper bound for the observed usage at the mid-level server O high is incremented by the allowable usage limit for the DNS information response N resp
- the residual usage counter is decremented by the allowable usage limit for the DNS information response N resp in step 102 .
- the lower bound for the observed usage at the mid-level server O low now indicates that the DNS information has been provided to at least one requestor, the lower-level server.
- the upper bound for the observed usage at the mid-level server O high now indicates that the maximum number of requestors the DNS information can be provided to is equal to the allowable usage limit N resp granted to the lower-level server.
- the residual usage counter now indicates the remaining usage that may be granted to additional requestors.
- the requested DNS information is then sent to the lower-level server with the allowable usage limit for the DNS information response N resp in step 104 .
- the mid-level server variables are initialized in step 110 . Specifically, N M is initialized to N, O M,low is initialized to O low , and O M,high is initialized to O high . If the requested DNS information is in cache in step 88 , the cached information has not expired in step 106 , and the residual usage counter is not zero in step 108 , the residual usage counter and upper and lower bounds associated with the lower-level server are set as follows in step 112 :
- O low : O low ⁇ 1+ O L,low (1);
- RUC: RUC+N L ⁇ O L,high (3).
- O low is decremented by (1) in equation 1
- O high is decremented by N L in equation (2)
- N L is added to RUC in equation (3) since corresponding values (1, N resp , N resp ) were applied by the mid-level server to O low , O high , and RUC as presumed values for the lower-level server in step 102 .
- the lower-level server is reporting observed values, which are being substituted for the values presumed in step 102 .
- the method then preferably continues with step 110 as described above.
- the use of DNS information is preferably limited by the number of requestors to which the information has been provided (allowable usage limit).
- a request for revalidation of DNS information provides information concerning the number of requestors to which the DNS information has been provided (observed usage count).
Landscapes
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Computer Networks & Wireless Communication (AREA)
- Signal Processing (AREA)
- Data Exchanges In Wide-Area Networks (AREA)
- Computer And Data Communications (AREA)
Abstract
Description
- The present invention relates generally to computer network systems, and more particularly to a method and apparatus for limiting the reuse of domain name system information, such as internet protocol (IP) addresses assigned to a particular domain name, which is periodically validated.
- The domain name system (DNS) is an integral part of the Internet and other networks that use Internet-type protocols and architectures, such as transmission control protocol internet protocol (TCP/IP). The primary function of the domain name system is to permit users to access information on different computers connected to the Internet by simply typing or selecting text names, without regard to the sequence of numbers that specify the actual machine addresses or the name servers where the information to be accessed is located.
- Thus, DNS is responsible for mapping an ASCII hostname, such as www.research.att.com to an IP address, such as 192.20.225.10. In some cases, different IP addresses are returned in response to different queries, which may be a function of information, such as load and network location. In addition, a single response can provide multiple IP addresses.
- The entire database that is accessible over the Internet is divided into zones, which are distributed among name servers. The essential task of a name server is to answer queries using data in its zone. The reliability of the system and the information contained therein is of paramount importance. Consequently, and in order to ensure continued reliability, the DNS requires that at least two name servers within a zone contain data derived from an authoritative server, i.e., authoritative data. The two name servers may be denominated primary and secondary servers, or, as referred to herein, higher level DNS servers and lower level DNS servers. One of the chief responsibilities of name servers is to load the database files and maintain cached data acquired through resource records. Each resource record contains a so-called “time-to-live” field, which ensures that name servers do not cache data without a time bound.
- The DNS is a hierarchical service, in which one DNS server can obtain information from another and then reuse that information repeatedly until a time-based threshold is reached. The time-based threshold is referred to as “time-to-live” or TTL. Normally, a local DNS server acts on behalf of clients by requesting DNS records, caching them, and then serving them to other clients for a period of time, known as the TTL, without revalidating the information. When an Internet user makes a request for a domain name record or information from a DNS server within the DNS, the DNS server must obtain the requested information or record and send it to the requesting party.
- One method of accomplishing this task is for the server to check its cache memory for a local list of domain names already matched to machine addresses. If the requested domain name is in cache, then the computer can respond with an answer in the form of the associated machine address within a very short period of time. Such a local list is referred to as a name cache. It is generally stored in random access memory, disk storage, or another storage device coupled to the name server computer. The name cache is updated periodically from other name servers in the Internet.
- When a DNS server caches the data, it builds up a database with relevant information that may be useful the next time the same or a similar query is received. Essentially, once the information is cached, the name server acquires significant knowledge about the data and whether it is responsive to a particular query or class of queries. Thus, once the information is cached, the process of obtaining the data is shortened significantly because the server now has the answer to the query in its cache. This leads to greater efficiency and enhanced performance, insofar as the cached information can be used for future inquiries. The resolution of data that is already in the local cache is considerably more efficient than a remote resolution that requires maneuvering through network traffic. However, there is a tradeoff. There is a very real possibility that the cached information may become outdated by the time it is used.
- The local DNS server may serve a small number of clients, or an enormous community. Until the TTL expires, the local DNS will continue to use and distribute the same information. On the one hand, with a short TTL, the information will be fairly current, even with many clients using the specified host, because a new host can be selected before the load peaks too dramatically.
- However, revalidating the information and establishing a new TTL requires that queries be sent to the authoritative server linked to the local DNS server. Thus, while the information will be current, some of these clients must wait for a round-trip between the local DNS and the authoritative DNS. On the other hand, with a longer TTL, the DNS lookup is amortized over more lookups, and fewer clients must wait, but the server may become overloaded before a new host is used.
- Originally, DNS was intended to be static, that is, a hostname-to-IP address assignment would rarely change and would certainly not be different for different hosts requesting the same information. With the advent of DNS being used for geographic load balancing, DNS is much more dynamic, but there is still a balance to be drawn between assigning a low TTL to ensure that too many hosts do not use the information before revalidating, and assigning a higher TTL to limit the delay in repeatedly obtaining the same DNS information.
- As discussed above, DNS is a hierarchical service, in which one DNS server can obtain information from another and then reuse that information until the TTL has expired. There is currently no control over whether the DNS server reuses this information to serve a small number of requests or a large number of requests. This results in what could be called a “hidden load” that can only be estimated using prior knowledge concerning a particular DNS server. For instance, a server associated with a high rate of usage would, if possible, be assigned a shorter TTL and/or directed to a host with greater capacity than a server having a more moderate rate of usage. In view of the foregoing considerations, a method and system are called for to address this hidden load problem.
- It is an object of the present invention to provide a system and method that limit use of specific domain name system (DNS) information according to a quantity of clients and servers requesting this information.
- It is another object of the present invention to provide a system and method that pass information concerning the quantity of clients and servers that have requested specific DNS information to a server that has been requested to provide this information.
- A method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with one form of the present invention, which incorporates some of the preferred features, includes the step of requesting domain name information by a local domain name server from an authoritative domain name server. The domain name information includes an allowable usage limit that represents a maximum number of times that the domain name information can be provided to a requestor, such as a client or server, before validating the domain name information.
- A system for limiting reuse of domain name information formed in accordance with one form of the present invention, which incorporates some of the preferred features, includes an authoritative domain name server, a local domain name server, and at least one requestor, such as a client or server. The local domain name server is operatively coupled to the authoritative domain name server, and the requestor is operatively couple to the local domain name server.
- The requestor requests domain name information from the local domain name server, and the local domain name server requests domain name information from the authoritative domain name server. The authoritative domain name server provides the domain name information in response to the local domain name server requesting domain name information. The domain name information includes an allowable usage limit, which represents a maximum number of times the domain name information can be provided to the requestor before validating the domain name information.
- Other objects and features of the present invention will become apparent from the following detailed description considered in conjunction with the accompanying drawings. It is to be understood, however, that the drawings are designed as an illustration only and not as a definition of the limits of the invention.
-
FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a system for limiting reuse of domain name information formed in accordance with the present invention. -
FIG. 2 a is a flowchart of a first embodiment of a method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention. -
FIG. 2 b is a flowchart of a second embodiment of the method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention. -
FIG. 3 a is a flowchart of a third embodiment of the method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention. -
FIG. 3 b is a flowchart of a fourth embodiment of the method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention. - Domain name system (DNS) information is generally requested from an authoritative DNS server by a local DNS server. The authoritative server responds by providing the DNS information to the local DNS server. The system and method in accordance with the present invention limits reuse of domain name information by returning the requested DNS information with an allowable usage limit, in addition to the customary time-to-live (TTL) threshold. The allowable usage limit represents the maximum number of times that the associated domain name information may be provided to requestors before it must be revalidated.
- The local DNS server returning the requested DNS information to a client preferably decrements a residual usage counter, which is a countdown of the allowable usage limit. The local DNS server that returns the requested DNS information to another DNS server would preferably issue a subset of its own allowable usage limit to the requesting server, and decrement its own residual usage counter by that portion of the allowable usage limit granted to the requesting server to ensure that the allowable usage limit remains constant.
- In this way, the local DNS server preferably enables another DNS server to permit a maximum number of clients to use a particular IP address before revalidating. When the server at the requested IP address is lightly loaded, the number of uses and the duration of the TTL in the response are preferably relatively high. In contrast, when the server or other parts of the infrastructure, such as network or load-balancing switches, approach maximum capacity, the TTL is preferably more conservative.
- Another embodiment in accordance with the present invention enables the DNS server requesting revalidation of DNS information to provide feedback information concerning the number times that the DNS information has been provided to other clients and servers as an observed usage count. This information is preferably used to improve the assignment of IP addresses to achieve improved load balancing of the network.
- In the case of a plurality of IP addresses being assigned to one hostname, the same or different allowable usage limits may be assigned to the IP addresses associated with a particular hostname. The DNS server requesting the DNS information could then assign the IP addresses to other servers or clients randomly, sequentially (round robin), or probabilistically in accordance with weights assigned to each of the plurality of IP addresses. For example, in a probabilistic assignment, assume that there are two IP addresses, IPA1 and IPA2, assigned to a hostname. Further assume that IPA1 is assigned a weighting of 0.4 (40%) and that IPA2 is assigned a weighting of 0.6 (60%). The DNS server requesting the DNS information could then assign IPA1 to 40% of its requestors and assign IPA2 to 60% of its requestors.
-
FIG. 1 shows a system 10 for limiting reuse of DNS information. The system includes anauthoritative DNS server 12 operatively coupled to alocal DNS server 14. Thelocal DNS server 14 is operatively coupled to otherlocal DNS servers client 16 that is operatively coupled to and requests DNS information from thelocal DNS server 14. Theclients 16 preferably access aweb server 20 using DNS information obtained from theauthoritative DNS server 12, and one or more of thelocal DNS servers authoritative DNS server 12, which returns an A record or DNS information including a hostname-to-IP-address mapping, may realize that some local DNS servers tend to serve a large number of client 16 s, and consequently may direct those servers to point theirclients 16 at particular hosts that have unusually large capacity, and/or return a shorter than usual TTL. -
FIG. 2 a is a flowchart of a first embodiment of a method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention. In using the method, a client requests DNS information in the form of a record from the local DNS server. Upon receiving the DNS information request from the client instep 24, the local DNS server preferably determines whether the requested DNS information is in its cache instep 26. If the requested information is in cache, the local DNS server then determines whether the cached DNS information has expired instep 28, that is, the server determines whether the time to live (TTL) threshold associated with the DNS information is zero. - If the local DNS server determines that the cached DNS information has not expired in
step 28, that is, the TTL value is not zero, the local DNS server determines the value of a residual usage counter instep 30. If the value of the residual usage counter is not zero, the local DNS server decrements the value of the residual usage counter instep 32, and provides the requested DNS information to the client that initially requested the information instep 34. - Alternatively, the local DNS server may determine that the requested DNS information is not cached in
step 26, or if it is cached, that the cached DNS information has expired instep 28, or that although the TTL has not expired (TTL>0), the residual usage counter value is 0. In each of these circumstances, the local DNS server preferably requests and obtains the DNS information from the authoritative DNS server, which includes a new TTL and allowable usage limit N instep 36. - By obtaining the new TTL and allowable usage limit, the authoritative DNS server essentially eliminates the conditions that caused the local DNS server to request the information from the authoritative server. The TTL reflects the amount of time that the DNS information may exist before being revalidated. The residual usage counter value preferably reflects the number of times that the local DNS server may provide the domain name information to a requestor, such as a client or another server.
- Upon receipt of the requested DNS information from the authoritative DNS server, the local DNS server preferably stores the information in its local cache in
step 38. The local DNS server then preferably sets the residual usage counter to N−1 instep 40, and sends the requested DNS information to the client instep 34. By setting the residual usage counter to N−1, the local DNS server decrements the residual usage count by one to account for the DNS information being providing to the requesting client for the first time instep 34. -
FIG. 2 b represents a second embodiment of the method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention, which is substantially similar to that shown inFIG. 2 a, except that the DNS information is being requested by and provided to a server rather than a client. Specifically, in the embodiment shown inFIG. 2 b, the initial request for DNS information preferably originates from a local DNS server to another local DNS server, such as fromserver server 14 or fromserver 22 toserver 18 shown inFIG. 1 , rather than from theclient 16 to thelocal DNS server 14. - As described above in reference to
FIG. 2 a, when the DNS server receives the request instep 42, the server preferably determines whether the requested information is already in its cache memory instep 44 ofFIG. 2 b. If the requested DNS information exists in cache, the DNS server determines that the TTL has not expired instep 46, and the residual usage counter value is not zero instep 48, then the DNS server preferably decrements the residual usage counter instep 50, and sends the requested information to the requesting DNS server instep 52. - However, in providing the DNS information, the DNS server also preferably sends an allowable usage limit subset M in
step 52 associated with the requested information, which represents a portion of the allowable usage limit originally provided with the DNS information by the authoritative DNS server when first validated. The allowable usage limit M preferably reflects the number of requestors, which include clients and servers, to which the requesting DNS server may subsequently provide the corresponding information. Accordingly, the residual usage counter is preferably decremented by M instep 50 to represent that portion of the allowable usage counter being granted to the requesting DNS server instep 52. - In
FIG. 2 b, if the requested information does not exist in cache, and the local DNS server must obtain it from the authoritative server instep 44, the authoritative server sets the allowable usage limit N associated with the DNS information before sending it and the requested information to the local DNS server instep 54. Upon receiving the information from the authoritative server, the local DNS server preferably stores the information in cache instep 56, sets the residual usage counter to N−M instep 58, and sends the requested DNS information to the requesting DNS server with an allowable usage limit subset M, which represents a portion of the allowable usage limit N, instep 52. The requesting DNS server, which has received the requested information and the associated allowable usage limit subset M, preferably decrements M each time this information is provided to a requestor by an amount equal to the usage limit granted to that requestor. -
FIG. 3 a shows a third embodiment of the method of limiting reuse of domain name information in accordance with the present invention. In this embodiment, when the local DNS server receives a request for DNS information from the client instep 60 and determines that the requested information is not in its cache instep 62, the server preferably initializes an observed usage counter associated with the requested information to zero instep 74. - The server then preferably sends a request for the DNS information to the authoritative DNS server with the current value of the observed usage counter in
step 76. In response, the authoritative DNS server preferably provides the requested DNS information with the associated TTL value and the allowable usage limit N to the requesting client instep 78. Thus, the requesting DNS server essentially obtains information from the authoritative server that is defined by a set of three parameters, namely, TTL and the allowable usage limit N provided by the authoritative server, as well as the observed usage counter provided by the requesting server. - Thereafter, the DNS server preferably stores the information in its local cache in
step 80 so that it is readily available for the next client requesting the same information. In storing the information in cache, the local DNS server preferably sets the associated residual usage counter to N−1 instep 82 to account for the fact that is it about to provide the information to the requesting client. The server also preferably increments the observed usage counter instep 84 to represent that the information is being provided to the requesting client. Thus, for every decrement in the residual usage counter, there is preferably an accompanying increment in the observed usage counter, and both figures represent the fact that the requested information is being provided to the requesting client instep 72. - If the requested DNS information is found to be in cache in
step 62, and either the DNS information has expired instep 64, or the associated residual usage counter is zero instep 66, the server preferably requests the DNS information from the authoritative server and provides the current observed usage counter value to the authoritative server instep 76. If the requested DNS information is found to be in cache instep 62, the DNS information has not expired instep 64, and the associated residual usage counter is not zero instep 66, the observed usage counter is incremented instep 68 and the residual usage counter is decremented instep 70 to represent that the DNS information is being provided to the requesting client instep 72. -
FIG. 3 b is a flowchart of another embodiment in accordance with the present invention, which is substantially similar to that shown inFIG. 3 a, except that the flowchart represents the viewpoint of a mid-level server, such asserver 18 inFIG. 1 , which receives a request for DNS information from a lower-level server, such asserver 22 inFIG. 1 . The mid-level server preferably forwards the request for DNS information to an upper-level server, such asserver 14 or theauthoritative server 12 shown inFIG. 1 . - In
step 86, the mid-level server preferably receives the DNS information request from the lower-level server with the allowable usage limit NL that the mid-level server previously granted to the lower-level server in response to the request from the lower-level server for the DNS information, a lower bound of the observed usage associated with the DNS information reported by the lower-level server OL,low, and an upper bound of the observed usage associated with the DNS information reported by the lower-level server OL,high. If, instep 88, the requested DNS information is not in the cache of the mid-level server, the value of the mid-level server variables corresponding to each of these variables is set to zero instep 90. The mid-level server then sends a request to the upper-level or authoritative server instep 92, which includes the current value of NM, OM,low, and OM,high. - In
step 94, the mid-level server preferably receives the requested information with the TTL and allowable usage limit N from the upper-level or authoritative server. The mid-level server then initializes its residual usage counter to N, initializes the upper bound of observed usage reported by the mid-level server Ohigh to zero, and initializes the lower bound of observed usage reported by the mid-level server at the lower-level server Olow to zero instep 96. The DNS information is stored in local cache in the mid-level server instep 98 with the allowable usage limit N. - In
step 100, an allowable usage limit for the DNS information response to the lower-level server Nresp is chosen as less than or equal to the residual usage counter. The value of Nresp can be chosen based on such factors as the remaining TTL of the DNS response, the number of requestors, which may include clients and lower-level DNS servers, to which the requesting DNS server may subsequently provide the requested information, past history of usage by this and other requesting DNS servers, etc. The lower bound for the observed usage at the mid-level server Olow is incremented by one, the upper bound for the observed usage at the mid-level server Ohigh is incremented by the allowable usage limit for the DNS information response Nresp, and the residual usage counter is decremented by the allowable usage limit for the DNS information response Nresp instep 102. - Thus, the lower bound for the observed usage at the mid-level server Olow now indicates that the DNS information has been provided to at least one requestor, the lower-level server. The upper bound for the observed usage at the mid-level server Ohigh now indicates that the maximum number of requestors the DNS information can be provided to is equal to the allowable usage limit Nresp granted to the lower-level server. The residual usage counter now indicates the remaining usage that may be granted to additional requestors. The requested DNS information is then sent to the lower-level server with the allowable usage limit for the DNS information response Nresp in
step 104. - If the requested DNS information is in cache in
step 88 and either the cached information has expired instep 106 or the residual usage counter is zero instep 108, the mid-level server variables are initialized instep 110. Specifically, NM is initialized to N, OM,low is initialized to Olow, and OM,high is initialized to Ohigh. If the requested DNS information is in cache instep 88, the cached information has not expired instep 106, and the residual usage counter is not zero instep 108, the residual usage counter and upper and lower bounds associated with the lower-level server are set as follows in step 112: -
O low :=O low−1+O L,low (1); -
O high :=O high −N L +O L,high (2); and -
RUC:=RUC+N L −O L,high (3). - Olow is decremented by (1) in
equation 1, Ohigh is decremented by NL in equation (2), and NL is added to RUC in equation (3) since corresponding values (1, Nresp, Nresp) were applied by the mid-level server to Olow, Ohigh, and RUC as presumed values for the lower-level server instep 102. Instep 112, the lower-level server is reporting observed values, which are being substituted for the values presumed instep 102. The method then preferably continues withstep 110 as described above. - In accordance with the present invention, the use of DNS information is preferably limited by the number of requestors to which the information has been provided (allowable usage limit). In addition, a request for revalidation of DNS information provides information concerning the number of requestors to which the DNS information has been provided (observed usage count).
- Several embodiments of the present invention are specifically illustrated and/or described herein. However, it will be appreciated that modifications and variations of the present invention are covered by the above teachings and within the purview of the appended claims without departing from the spirit and intended scope of the invention.
Claims (1)
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US12/259,887 US7725536B2 (en) | 2004-03-11 | 2008-10-28 | Method and apparatus for limiting reuse of domain name system information |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US10/798,076 US7444371B2 (en) | 2004-03-11 | 2004-03-11 | Method and apparatus for limiting reuse of domain name system response information |
US12/259,887 US7725536B2 (en) | 2004-03-11 | 2008-10-28 | Method and apparatus for limiting reuse of domain name system information |
Related Parent Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US10/798,076 Continuation US7444371B2 (en) | 2004-03-11 | 2004-03-11 | Method and apparatus for limiting reuse of domain name system response information |
Publications (2)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US20090070453A1 true US20090070453A1 (en) | 2009-03-12 |
US7725536B2 US7725536B2 (en) | 2010-05-25 |
Family
ID=34827655
Family Applications (2)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US10/798,076 Expired - Fee Related US7444371B2 (en) | 2004-03-11 | 2004-03-11 | Method and apparatus for limiting reuse of domain name system response information |
US12/259,887 Expired - Fee Related US7725536B2 (en) | 2004-03-11 | 2008-10-28 | Method and apparatus for limiting reuse of domain name system information |
Family Applications Before (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US10/798,076 Expired - Fee Related US7444371B2 (en) | 2004-03-11 | 2004-03-11 | Method and apparatus for limiting reuse of domain name system response information |
Country Status (4)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (2) | US7444371B2 (en) |
EP (1) | EP1575246B1 (en) |
CA (1) | CA2498118C (en) |
DE (1) | DE602005001063T2 (en) |
Cited By (9)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20090216875A1 (en) * | 2008-02-26 | 2009-08-27 | Barracuda Inc. | Filtering secure network messages without cryptographic processes method |
US20100257024A1 (en) * | 2009-04-07 | 2010-10-07 | Verisign, Inc. | Domain Traffic Ranking |
US20100274836A1 (en) * | 2009-04-22 | 2010-10-28 | Verisign, Inc. | Internet Profile Service |
US20100274970A1 (en) * | 2009-04-23 | 2010-10-28 | Opendns, Inc. | Robust Domain Name Resolution |
CN102790809A (en) * | 2011-05-16 | 2012-11-21 | 奇智软件(北京)有限公司 | Domain name system resolution method, device and client |
US20130066842A1 (en) * | 2007-04-04 | 2013-03-14 | Huawei Device Co., Ltd. | Method and Device for Storing Domain Name System Records, Method and Device for Parsing Domain Name |
US20140082172A1 (en) * | 2012-09-18 | 2014-03-20 | Htc Corporation | Electronic device and method for dns processing |
CN103685599A (en) * | 2013-12-09 | 2014-03-26 | 中国科学院计算机网络信息中心 | Domain name recursion service pre-judgment and intervention method |
US11444931B1 (en) * | 2020-06-24 | 2022-09-13 | F5, Inc. | Managing name server data |
Families Citing this family (35)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US9602538B1 (en) * | 2006-03-21 | 2017-03-21 | Trend Micro Incorporated | Network security policy enforcement integrated with DNS server |
US7778189B2 (en) * | 2006-06-30 | 2010-08-17 | Nokia Corporation | Maintaining an existing connection between nodes |
ATE410876T1 (en) * | 2006-08-01 | 2008-10-15 | Alcatel Lucent | METHOD OF PROVIDING A TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE THROUGH DYNAMIC CONTROL OF REQUEST FEEDBACK |
US7970891B1 (en) * | 2007-01-17 | 2011-06-28 | Google Inc. | Tracking links in web browsers |
US8037126B2 (en) | 2007-03-12 | 2011-10-11 | Citrix Systems, Inc. | Systems and methods of dynamically checking freshness of cached objects based on link status |
US8701010B2 (en) | 2007-03-12 | 2014-04-15 | Citrix Systems, Inc. | Systems and methods of using the refresh button to determine freshness policy |
US8103783B2 (en) | 2007-03-12 | 2012-01-24 | Citrix Systems, Inc. | Systems and methods of providing security and reliability to proxy caches |
US7720936B2 (en) | 2007-03-12 | 2010-05-18 | Citrix Systems, Inc. | Systems and methods of freshening and prefreshening a DNS cache |
AU2008225151B2 (en) * | 2007-03-12 | 2012-06-28 | Citrix Systems, Inc. | Systems and methods for cache operations |
US7584294B2 (en) | 2007-03-12 | 2009-09-01 | Citrix Systems, Inc. | Systems and methods for prefetching objects for caching using QOS |
US8074028B2 (en) | 2007-03-12 | 2011-12-06 | Citrix Systems, Inc. | Systems and methods of providing a multi-tier cache |
US7783757B2 (en) | 2007-03-12 | 2010-08-24 | Citrix Systems, Inc. | Systems and methods of revalidating cached objects in parallel with request for object |
US8504775B2 (en) | 2007-03-12 | 2013-08-06 | Citrix Systems, Inc | Systems and methods of prefreshening cached objects based on user's current web page |
US7809818B2 (en) | 2007-03-12 | 2010-10-05 | Citrix Systems, Inc. | Systems and method of using HTTP head command for prefetching |
US8266288B2 (en) * | 2008-10-23 | 2012-09-11 | International Business Machines Corporation | Dynamic expiration of domain name service entries |
US9258269B1 (en) * | 2009-03-25 | 2016-02-09 | Symantec Corporation | Methods and systems for managing delivery of email to local recipients using local reputations |
US8935428B2 (en) * | 2009-06-24 | 2015-01-13 | Broadcom Corporation | Fault tolerance approaches for DNS server failures |
US20110055312A1 (en) * | 2009-08-28 | 2011-03-03 | Apple Inc. | Chunked downloads over a content delivery network |
US20120079088A1 (en) * | 2010-09-27 | 2012-03-29 | Microsoft Corporation | Proving domain name ownership |
US10270755B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2019-04-23 | Verisign, Inc. | Authenticated name resolution |
US8990356B2 (en) | 2011-10-03 | 2015-03-24 | Verisign, Inc. | Adaptive name resolution |
WO2013059541A1 (en) * | 2011-10-19 | 2013-04-25 | Xerocole, Inc. | Answer augmentation system for authoritative dns servers |
US9197487B2 (en) | 2013-03-15 | 2015-11-24 | Verisign, Inc. | High performance DNS traffic management |
CN103475706B (en) * | 2013-09-09 | 2016-06-29 | 中国科学技术大学苏州研究院 | Pseudo-TCP covert communication method based on SYN-ACK two server bounce mode |
US9900281B2 (en) * | 2014-04-14 | 2018-02-20 | Verisign, Inc. | Computer-implemented method, apparatus, and computer-readable medium for processing named entity queries using a cached functionality in a domain name system |
KR102154788B1 (en) * | 2014-10-02 | 2020-09-11 | 삼성전자주식회사 | A DNS resolution method in a terminal of a wireless communication system, and an apparatus therefor |
US9372994B1 (en) * | 2014-12-13 | 2016-06-21 | Security Scorecard, Inc. | Entity IP mapping |
US10791085B2 (en) | 2015-11-12 | 2020-09-29 | Verisign, Inc. | Techniques for directing a domain name service (DNS) resolution process |
US20180013618A1 (en) * | 2016-07-11 | 2018-01-11 | Aruba Networks, Inc. | Domain name system servers for dynamic host configuration protocol clients |
US10999240B1 (en) | 2016-08-31 | 2021-05-04 | Verisign, Inc. | Client controlled domain name service (DNS) resolution |
CN108206814B (en) * | 2016-12-20 | 2021-03-16 | 腾讯科技(深圳)有限公司 | A method, device and system for defending against DNS attacks |
US10541967B2 (en) * | 2017-02-28 | 2020-01-21 | Roqos, Inc. | System and method for estimating and limiting usage of network applications |
CN106953940B (en) * | 2017-04-13 | 2018-11-20 | 网宿科技股份有限公司 | Dns server and configuring load application method, network system, domain name analytic method and system |
US11032127B2 (en) | 2017-06-26 | 2021-06-08 | Verisign, Inc. | Resilient domain name service (DNS) resolution when an authoritative name server is unavailable |
CN114124893A (en) * | 2021-11-24 | 2022-03-01 | 广州方硅信息技术有限公司 | Domain name caching method, apparatus, system, storage medium and computer equipment |
Citations (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20010049741A1 (en) * | 1999-06-18 | 2001-12-06 | Bryan D. Skene | Method and system for balancing load distribution on a wide area network |
US20030149581A1 (en) * | 2002-08-28 | 2003-08-07 | Imran Chaudhri | Method and system for providing intelligent network content delivery |
US7299491B2 (en) * | 2003-04-30 | 2007-11-20 | Microsoft Corporation | Authenticated domain name resolution |
Family Cites Families (9)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US5884038A (en) * | 1997-05-02 | 1999-03-16 | Whowhere? Inc. | Method for providing an Internet protocol address with a domain name server |
US6256671B1 (en) | 1998-06-24 | 2001-07-03 | Nortel Networks Limited | Method and apparatus for providing network access control using a domain name system |
US6205477B1 (en) * | 1998-10-20 | 2001-03-20 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Apparatus and method for performing traffic redirection in a distributed system using a portion metric |
US6480508B1 (en) | 1999-05-12 | 2002-11-12 | Westell, Inc. | Router-based domain name system proxy agent using address translation |
US6351743B1 (en) | 1999-05-26 | 2002-02-26 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Method and apparatus for operating domain name servers |
US6643707B1 (en) | 2000-02-14 | 2003-11-04 | General Instrument Corporation | Method and apparatus for defining, managing and distributing broadcast names |
US7454500B1 (en) * | 2000-09-26 | 2008-11-18 | Foundry Networks, Inc. | Global server load balancing |
US6993583B2 (en) * | 2002-02-28 | 2006-01-31 | International Business Machines Corporation | Dynamically sharing a pool of IP addresses |
US7086061B1 (en) * | 2002-08-01 | 2006-08-01 | Foundry Networks, Inc. | Statistical tracking of global server load balancing for selecting the best network address from ordered list of network addresses based on a set of performance metrics |
-
2004
- 2004-03-11 US US10/798,076 patent/US7444371B2/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
-
2005
- 2005-02-23 CA CA2498118A patent/CA2498118C/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
- 2005-02-28 EP EP05101500A patent/EP1575246B1/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
- 2005-02-28 DE DE602005001063T patent/DE602005001063T2/en not_active Expired - Lifetime
-
2008
- 2008-10-28 US US12/259,887 patent/US7725536B2/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
Patent Citations (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US20010049741A1 (en) * | 1999-06-18 | 2001-12-06 | Bryan D. Skene | Method and system for balancing load distribution on a wide area network |
US20030149581A1 (en) * | 2002-08-28 | 2003-08-07 | Imran Chaudhri | Method and system for providing intelligent network content delivery |
US7299491B2 (en) * | 2003-04-30 | 2007-11-20 | Microsoft Corporation | Authenticated domain name resolution |
Cited By (24)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US8874718B2 (en) * | 2007-04-04 | 2014-10-28 | Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. | Method and device for storing domain name system records, method and device for parsing domain name |
US20130066842A1 (en) * | 2007-04-04 | 2013-03-14 | Huawei Device Co., Ltd. | Method and Device for Storing Domain Name System Records, Method and Device for Parsing Domain Name |
US20090216875A1 (en) * | 2008-02-26 | 2009-08-27 | Barracuda Inc. | Filtering secure network messages without cryptographic processes method |
US20100257024A1 (en) * | 2009-04-07 | 2010-10-07 | Verisign, Inc. | Domain Traffic Ranking |
WO2010118118A1 (en) * | 2009-04-07 | 2010-10-14 | Verisign, Inc. | Existent domain name dns traffic capture and analysis |
US9769035B2 (en) | 2009-04-07 | 2017-09-19 | Verisign, Inc. | Domain popularity scoring |
US20110087769A1 (en) * | 2009-04-07 | 2011-04-14 | Verisign, Inc. | Domain Popularity Scoring |
CN102549562A (en) * | 2009-04-07 | 2012-07-04 | 弗里塞恩公司 | Existent domain name DNS traffic capture and analysis |
US8909760B2 (en) * | 2009-04-07 | 2014-12-09 | Verisign, Inc. | Domain popularity scoring |
US8521908B2 (en) | 2009-04-07 | 2013-08-27 | Verisign, Inc. | Existent domain name DNS traffic capture and analysis |
US8527658B2 (en) | 2009-04-07 | 2013-09-03 | Verisign, Inc | Domain traffic ranking |
US9742723B2 (en) | 2009-04-22 | 2017-08-22 | Verisign, Inc. | Internet profile service |
US9292612B2 (en) | 2009-04-22 | 2016-03-22 | Verisign, Inc. | Internet profile service |
US20100274836A1 (en) * | 2009-04-22 | 2010-10-28 | Verisign, Inc. | Internet Profile Service |
US8676989B2 (en) * | 2009-04-23 | 2014-03-18 | Opendns, Inc. | Robust domain name resolution |
US9276902B2 (en) | 2009-04-23 | 2016-03-01 | Opendns, Inc. | Robust domain name resolution |
US20100274970A1 (en) * | 2009-04-23 | 2010-10-28 | Opendns, Inc. | Robust Domain Name Resolution |
US10439982B2 (en) | 2009-04-23 | 2019-10-08 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Robust domain name resolution |
US10911399B2 (en) | 2009-04-23 | 2021-02-02 | Cisco Technology, Inc. | Robust domain name resolution |
CN102790809A (en) * | 2011-05-16 | 2012-11-21 | 奇智软件(北京)有限公司 | Domain name system resolution method, device and client |
US20140082172A1 (en) * | 2012-09-18 | 2014-03-20 | Htc Corporation | Electronic device and method for dns processing |
US9866448B2 (en) * | 2012-09-18 | 2018-01-09 | Htc Corporation | Electronic device and method for DNS processing |
CN103685599A (en) * | 2013-12-09 | 2014-03-26 | 中国科学院计算机网络信息中心 | Domain name recursion service pre-judgment and intervention method |
US11444931B1 (en) * | 2020-06-24 | 2022-09-13 | F5, Inc. | Managing name server data |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
CA2498118C (en) | 2010-03-23 |
US7444371B2 (en) | 2008-10-28 |
DE602005001063T2 (en) | 2008-01-10 |
EP1575246A1 (en) | 2005-09-14 |
EP1575246B1 (en) | 2007-05-09 |
DE602005001063D1 (en) | 2007-06-21 |
US7725536B2 (en) | 2010-05-25 |
US20050204039A1 (en) | 2005-09-15 |
CA2498118A1 (en) | 2005-09-11 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US7444371B2 (en) | Method and apparatus for limiting reuse of domain name system response information | |
US10116584B2 (en) | Managing content delivery network service providers | |
US11115500B2 (en) | Request routing utilizing client location information | |
US7376736B2 (en) | Method and system for providing on-demand content delivery for an origin server | |
US20180205697A1 (en) | Managing content delivery network service providers by a content broker | |
US9734472B2 (en) | Request routing utilizing cost information | |
US8510448B2 (en) | Service provider registration by a content broker | |
US9608957B2 (en) | Request routing using network computing components | |
US6996616B1 (en) | HTML delivery from edge-of-network servers in a content delivery network (CDN) | |
US7047301B2 (en) | Method and system for enabling persistent access to virtual servers by an LDNS server | |
US11095605B1 (en) | Request routing utilizing encoded DNS-based messaging parameters |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
FEPP | Fee payment procedure |
Free format text: PAYOR NUMBER ASSIGNED (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: ASPN); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY |
|
STCF | Information on status: patent grant |
Free format text: PATENTED CASE |
|
FPAY | Fee payment |
Year of fee payment: 4 |
|
MAFP | Maintenance fee payment |
Free format text: PAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEE, 8TH YEAR, LARGE ENTITY (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: M1552) Year of fee payment: 8 |
|
FEPP | Fee payment procedure |
Free format text: MAINTENANCE FEE REMINDER MAILED (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: REM.); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY |
|
LAPS | Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees |
Free format text: PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: EXP.); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY |
|
STCH | Information on status: patent discontinuation |
Free format text: PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362 |
|
STCH | Information on status: patent discontinuation |
Free format text: PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362 |
|
FP | Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee |
Effective date: 20220525 |